jdobbin Posted March 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2009 March 21 Nanos Research PollFederal party preferences of committed voters (Canada) Liberal 36% Conservative 33% NDP 13% Bloc 10% Green 8% Were it not for still large western numbers, I think we might be seeing even worse national results for the Tories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 (edited) That could be true. What do you recommend though to change that? simple: give checks on participation... the notion that anything that can stand on two legs has some divine right to a vote is a PERVERSE and DESTRUCTIVE notion. Administer voter illegibility exams or qualification ranks.. for instance: anybody on welfare for more then a year has his voting rights revoked. A person with an IQ of 70 has no right to a vote... immigrants with dual citizenship have their right to vote revoked immediately. push the right to vote to persons 21 and older. That would be the surest way to obtain real meaningful democratization- a system where the voters KNOW the issues and are a little more impervious the the depredations and manipulations of our kept media and liepapers. The system wouldn't be perfect, but it'd be a lot better then the party-shell game to keep the mouth-breathing masses amused and convinced that they are making important decisions about the country... Edited March 22, 2009 by lictor616 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 That would be the surest way to obtain real meaningful democratization- a system where the voters KNOW the issues and are a little more impervious the the depredations and manipulations of our kept media and liepapers. Seems a little on the coercive side and runs the risk of creating a Gattaca-like world where people are Valid or In Valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Seems a little on the coercive side and runs the risk of creating a Gattaca-like world where people are Valid or In Valid. as I remember Gattaca was a pretty advanced and seemingly intelligent world... lol but anyways... How is it coercive to merely NOT count the votes of people who have no real interest or faculties for politics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Were it not for still large western numbers, I think we might be seeing even worse national results for the Tories. I think the Conservative decline Canada-wide is relatively small. The exciting news is that the Liberals are moving up into numbers that they've not seen for a while. The bad news for Conservative supporters is that they're unlikely to move higher as long as Harper leads the Conservatives and Ignatieff leads the Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 as I remember Gattaca was a pretty advanced and seemingly intelligent world... lol but anyways... Where judgments were made about whether groups based on no flaws were better than ones with flaws. The moral of the story was that some people can overcome their obstacles while others with better opportunities can't. How is it coercive to merely NOT count the votes of people who have no real interest or faculties for politics... The coercion follows from the issue of trying to qualify for citizenship by passing litmus tests to that effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Where judgments were made about whether groups based on no flaws were better than ones with flaws. The moral of the story was that some people can overcome their obstacles while others with better opportunities can't.The coercion follows from the issue of trying to qualify for citizenship by passing litmus tests to that effect. There is only one supreme law of life: the survival of the fittest, with its corollary, the extermination (or, through a hazardous compassion, subjugation) of the unfit. The Athenian envoys at Melos stated an obvious truth: "Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that the strong do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must." The only possible error in that dictum will come from incorrect estimates of strength. The message of the movie is unclear... for ethan hawkes character was STRONG after all.. which in this case is mere tautology (they underestimated his strength) but the link to voter eligibility? is there one? I suppose one would be free to pass the test or not- just as obtaining a drivers liscence involves a similar contract... either pass the test or not driver's permit.. the coercion in this isn't all that clear.. and is small... why not for voting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 I also remember reading that McCleans was said to have ascertained by investigation that no more that 31% of adult Canadians were mentally capable of reading a book--any book. Their feeble intellects, palsied and spasmodic, could not remain in focus on texts exceeding a few paragraphs. I wonder what percentage could spell "Macleans." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 I wonder what percentage could spell "Macleans." ahhHH! phonetic typo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 why not for voting? Probably because it comes as a right of citizenship. The state determined the fairest way to bestow citizenship within the territory claimed by the state was to be born in that state (with some notable exception such military, diplomats and children born to citizens outside the country wishing to bestow citizenship on their children). If there are various levels of citizenship, it can affect the stability of the state. It is in the interest of the state to encourage participation in state functions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 There is only one supreme law of life: the survival of the fittest, with its corollary, the extermination (or, through a hazardous compassion, subjugation) of the unfit. The Athenian envoys at Melos stated an obvious truth: Like all Social Darwinists, you oversimplify biology to the point of absurdity. Life isn't all "red in the tooth and claw". There are plenty of examples of co-operation out there. Hell, you couldn't digest food without a symbiotic relationship with bacteria in your gut. As to "fit" vs. "unfit", these are specific biological terms. Fitness, in its purest sense, is simply the ability to reproduce. I'd love to know what you consider to be "unfit". We know thus far you think brain damaged infants are unfit. Give me an example of say five types of people you don't think should reproduce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniel Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Like all Social Darwinists, you oversimplify biology to the point of absurdity. Life isn't all "red in the tooth and claw". There are plenty of examples of co-operation out there. Hell, you couldn't digest food without a symbiotic relationship with bacteria in your gut.As to "fit" vs. "unfit", these are specific biological terms. Fitness, in its purest sense, is simply the ability to reproduce. I'd love to know what you consider to be "unfit". We know thus far you think brain damaged infants are unfit. Give me an example of say five types of people you don't think should reproduce. Actually the original term wasn't "survival of the fittest". Somebody twisted the original term. It was something like survival of the most adaptive. Example: Neanderthals were very fit and much stronger than the Cro-Magnons. But Cro-Magnons adapted to the changing climate, the migrating herds, indicated they had culture, etc and the Neanderthals ran out of food because they couldn't compete simply because they didn't change the habits they had for thousands of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 Like all Social Darwinists, you oversimplify biology to the point of absurdity. Life isn't all "red in the tooth and claw". There are plenty of examples of co-operation out there. Hell, you couldn't digest food without a symbiotic relationship with bacteria in your gut.As to "fit" vs. "unfit", these are specific biological terms. Fitness, in its purest sense, is simply the ability to reproduce. I'd love to know what you consider to be "unfit". We know thus far you think brain damaged infants are unfit. Give me an example of say five types of people you don't think should reproduce. oversimplify? My simple statement doesn't talk about symbiosis (as in species of ants and aphids) one way or another! And the scientific record shows that there are many more species of plant and animal life which died or became extinct then survived. But anyways, 5 types of undesirables or "unfit" I guess any congenital malformation (such as Treacher Collins) or negative genetic tropism should definitely be corrected by one form or another of sterilization. If a malady or malformation has its basis in genes, then yes: we must diminish the chance of that gene to persist and multiply in our population. It is obvious that a rational society will act to check, by every means within its power, the fearsome and potentially catastrophic pullulation of its parasites. It is folly to encourage the preservation of malformed or degenerate offspring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 oversimplify? My simple statement doesn't talk about symbiosis (as in species of ants and aphids) one way or another! And the scientific record shows that there are many more species of plant and animal life which died or became extinct then survived. But anyways, 5 types of undesirables or "unfit" I guess any congenital malformation (such as Treacher Collins) or negative genetic tropism should definitely be corrected by one form or another of sterilization. If a malady or malformation has its basis in genes, then yes: we must diminish the chance of that gene to persist and multiply in our population. It is obvious that a rational society will act to check, by every means within its power, the fearsome and potentially catastrophic pullulation of its parasites. It is folly to encourage the preservation of malformed or degenerate offspring. Fetal Alcohol Syndrome is not a genetic disease. The record of eugenics has not been one of improvement of anything, but rather of the deprival of that most inherent; procreation, based upon ludicrous and misunderstood standards. A rational society understands that one's value cannot simply assessed by the presence or lack thereof of a gene which may or may not cause a disorder. Forced sterilization is not the act of a rational society, but of a society that has all sense of morality and ethics. Fortunately such societies seem few and far between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 I guess any congenital malformation (such as Treacher Collins) or negative genetic tropism should definitely be corrected by one form or another of sterilization. If a malady or malformation has its basis in genes, then yes: we must diminish the chance of that gene to persist and multiply in our population. It is obvious that a rational society will act to check, by every means within its power, the fearsome and potentially catastrophic pullulation of its parasites. It is folly to encourage the preservation of malformed or degenerate offspring. lictor, you seem very inflexible in your views on genetics. What is your reaction to the following? One in five white people carries a gene fault which could raise their risk of high blood pressure, research suggests.The STK39 gene variant was found after scanning the entire genetic code of hundreds of people in the US and Europe. Those with the variant had raised blood pressure compared with those carrying other versions. The US research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. High blood pressure, also called hypertension, is important because, over time, it can increase the chances of heart problems, strokes and kidney failure. It is thought that one in four people living in western countries has high blood pressure, often undiagnosed. Scientists looking for genetic vulnerabilities to the condition have explored dozens of possible genes, but STK39 has emerged as a front runner following the University of Maryland School of Medicine study. The researchers concentrated their efforts on 542 members of the Amish community in Pennsylvania, looking at their entire genetic make-up while testing their blood pressure. When this linked variants of the STK39 gene to high blood pressure, it made sense - the gene produces a protein which controls how the kidneys process salt - a key factor in changing blood pressure. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7802743.stm In your view, do you see sterilizing carriers of the STK39 gene variant as a potential solution to resolving the problem raised in the above findings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 lictor, you seem very inflexible in your views on genetics. What is your reaction to the following?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7802743.stm In your view, do you see sterilizing carriers of the STK39 gene variant as a potential solution to resolving the problem raised in the above findings? I'd like to go further and point out that sometimes a genetic disorder has another side. For instance, the gene responsible for sickle cell anemia only causes that disorder in people who get both copies of the errant gene. In people with just one copy, a partial immunity to malaria is conferred. The chief danger here, as always, is trying to use science to justify political notions. That was the failing of the social Darwinists from the very beginning; in part they didn't really understand evolutionary theory or biology in general, and in part they mistook what can (but not always does) play out in nature as some sort of roadmap for how human societies should function. The real secret to a healthy species is variation. Artificial breeding does not create stronger species, save within the very narrow scope of what is useful to humans. Many domesticated species would likely flounder if placed in a truly uncontrolled, natural setting. Domesticated species tend to be much more genetically homogeneous, which is in fact quite dangerous to the long-term fitness of a species. It was what the eugenicists never really understood, it is variation (sometimes even what appears to be unfit variation) that drives evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted March 22, 2009 Report Share Posted March 22, 2009 The real secret to a healthy species is variation. Artificial breeding does not create stronger species, save within the very narrow scope of what is useful to humans. Many domesticated species would likely flounder if placed in a truly uncontrolled, natural setting. Domesticated species tend to be much more genetically homogeneous, which is in fact quite dangerous to the long-term fitness of a species. It was what the eugenicists never really understood, it is variation (sometimes even what appears to be unfit variation) that drives evolution. Toad, my knowledge of science is very rudimentary. Let's see if I understand your observation with an example of purebred dogs. I've read that many purebred dogs have developed genetic diseases that are less common in so called mixed breed or the "Heinz 57" variety, for example, hip dysplasia in some breeds of larger dogs. So you're saying that trying to keep the human species pure can in fact backfire, as in the example I present. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 lictor, you seem very inflexible in your views on genetics. What is your reaction to the following?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7802743.stm In your view, do you see sterilizing carriers of the STK39 gene variant as a potential solution to resolving the problem raised in the above findings? "The study was carried out on Amish population" this of course means different dietary habits, different lifestyles etc. High blood pressure however is not a complex "disease"... Sickle Cell Anemia however is: and that disease is virtually a blacks only disease and 1 in 12 "African Americans" has sickle cell trait. But I digress, the grounds for enacting euthanasia was pretty clear: in cases of serious illnesses or conditions which impair the individuals ability to be independent. I mentioned downs syndrome, severe TCS as suggestive examples.... not chronic sinus problems, people with migraines or high blood pressure or birth marks... lets be fair ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 "The study was carried out on Amish population"this of course means different dietary habits, different lifestyles etc. High blood pressure however is not a complex "disease"... Sickle Cell Anemia however is: and that disease is virtually a blacks only disease and 1 in 12 "African Americans" has sickle cell trait. But I digress, the grounds for enacting euthanasia was pretty clear: in cases of serious illnesses or conditions which impair the individuals ability to be independent. I mentioned downs syndrome, severe TCS as suggestive examples.... not chronic sinus problems, people with migraines or high blood pressure or birth marks... lets be fair ... Survival of the most adaptive, requires the physical body to undergo changes that may eventually show up as a faulty gene in one or two subjects but eventually lead to a form of physical modification to increase the possibility of survival under certain environmental stresses. Using murder to maintain racial purity is actually a devolution in thinking since our bodies procreate with the exact purpose of diversifying the gene pool, not only so dead-ended modifications don't wipe out the human races but also so that beneficial modifications can be distributed through new gene pools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Survival of the most adaptive, requires the physical body to undergo changes that may eventually show up as a faulty gene in one or two subjects but eventually lead to a form of physical modification to increase the possibility of survival under certain environmental stresses. Using murder to maintain racial purity is actually a devolution in thinking since our bodies procreate with the exact purpose of diversifying the gene pool, not only so dead-ended modifications don't wipe out the human races but also so that beneficial modifications can be distributed through new gene pools. you'll have noticed of course that such arguments are actually anti-egalitarian since they suppose that racial mixing yields in a a superior biological unit. Also the notion that people that seek to reproduce with their own race you see as "devolved" (what was that you said about advocating hatred towards an identifiable people)? yeah, I smell a hypocrite. And no diversifying the gene pool, is not the same as making it SUPERIOR. the effects can also be deleterious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted March 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 Latest federal polling by CROP in Quebec: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/090326/..._us_separatists As reported in Reuters: Federally, the separatist Bloc Quebecois retains a substantial lead in the province if elections for the Canadian Parliament were held now.It would take 35 percent of the vote, against 30 percent for the federal Liberal Party and 18 percent for Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives. The BQ is a very hard party to shake from the high numbers it gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 Latest Harris-Decima Poll: It found that 44 per cent of respondents had a favourable view of Harper, while 45 per cent were negative.Ignatieff got a favourable rating from 45 per cent, but only 26 per cent held a negative view. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingn...l-41971557.html Seems Harper is getting into some trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vancouver King Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 Latest Harris-Decima Poll:http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingn...l-41971557.html The link leads to a Winnepeg Free Press apology. This one should be better: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...27?hub=Politics "Seems Harper is getting into some trouble". With negative numbers twice Ignatieff's, that is an understatement. Harper needs to shake up the current losing fundamentals or start planning another career. Our PM suddenly doesn't look like a brilliant strategist when faced with an opponent other than the weakling Dion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted March 29, 2009 Report Share Posted March 29, 2009 The link leads to a Winnipeg Free Press apology. Looks like they lost the story somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 "OTTAWA, March 30 (Reuters) - Canada's opposition Liberals have gained a slight lead in popular support over the ruling Conservatives amid increasing unhappiness over how the government is tackling the economic crisis, according to a poll published on Monday,. The Leger Marketing poll for the French-language Le Devoir newspaper put the Liberals, led by Michael Ignatieff, at 35 percent popular support, compared with 34 percent for the Conservatives, who won a strengthened minority in the general election held last October. The Liberals have continually attacked Prime Minister Stephen Harper for not doing enough to tackle the economic crisis. The survey showed that 41 percent of Canadians said Ignatieff had the best ideas for fixing the economy, compared with just 32 percent for Harper. "There is no good news at all in this poll for the Conservatives." Leger pollster Jean-Marc Leger told Le Devoir. http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/i...034003320090330 The 41% approval of Ignatieff's economic plans coupled with Layton's continuing decline bodes well for a potential Liberal majority in the next election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.